Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1779 

Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 10 a.m.–

11:30 a.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss 

proposed ACRS activities and related 

matters. The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy 

(telephone: 301–415–7364) between 

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior 

to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted 

only during those portions of the 

meeting that are open to the public. 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes in the agenda. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

Michael R. Snodderly, 

Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. 

[FR Doc. E7–404 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from December 

22, 2006 to January 4, 2007. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

January 3, 2007 (72 FR 147). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. Within 60 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, the 

licensee may file a request for a hearing 

with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license and any person whose 

interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 

requests for a hearing and petitions for 

leave to intervene is discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed within 60 

days, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1780 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner/requestor 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the petitioner/ 

requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 

requestor who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile 

transmission addressed to the Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC, 

Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to the attorney for the licensee. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If 

you do not have access to ADAMS or if 

there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–

4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. 

Date of amendment request: 

December 14, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments revise the 

technical specifications to add the 

FERRET Code as an approved 

methodology for determining reactor 

coolant system pressure and 

temperature limits. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant in accordance with the proposed 

amendments does not result in a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed change revises Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Reactor Coolant 

System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature 

Limits Report (PTLR)’’, to add the FERRET 

Code as an approved methodology for 

determining RCS pressure and temperature 

limits. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

the manner in which the plant is operated 

and maintained. The proposed change does 

not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 

systems, and components from performing 

their intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not significantly 

increase the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

There will be no change to normal plant 

operating parameters, engineered safety 

feature actuation setpoints, accident 

mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis 

assumptions or inputs. The proposed change 

does not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed change does 

not increase the types or amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, the probability or consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated will not 

be significantly increased as a result of the 

proposed change. 

2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant in accordance with the proposed 

amendments does not result in a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change incorporates the 

FERRET Code as an approved methodology 

for determining RCS pressure and 

temperature limits. The change does not 

impose any new or different requirements or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1781 

eliminate any existing requirements. The 

proposed change is consistent with the safety 

analysis assumptions and current plant 

operating practice. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

the proposed change. Equipment important 

to safety will continue to operate as designed. 

The change does not result in any event 

previously deemed incredible being made 

credible. The change does not result in 

adverse conditions or result in any increase 

in the challenges to safety systems. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

type of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant in accordance with the proposed 

amendments does not result in a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

The proposed change incorporates the 

FERRET Code as an approved methodology 

for determining RCS pressure and 

temperature limits. The proposed change 

does not alter safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or limiting conditions for 

operation. The setpoints at which protective 

actions are initiated are not altered by the 

proposed change. 

There are no new or significant changes to 

the initial conditions contributing to accident 

severity or consequences. The proposed 

amendment will not otherwise affect the 

plant protective boundaries, will not cause a 

release of fission products to the public, nor 

will it degrade the performance of any other 

structures, systems or components (SSCs) 

important to safety. Therefore, the requested 

change will not result in a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, 

Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & 

Secretary, Nuclear Management 

Company, LLC, 700 First Street, 

Hudson, WI 54016. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: L. 

Raghavan. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri. 

Date of amendment request: August 

17, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specifications (TSs) 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core 

SLs [Safety Limits],’’ 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor 

Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’

3.4.1, RCS [reactor coolant system] 

Pressure, Temperature, and Flow 

Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) 

Limits,’’ and 5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR).’’ The changes 

would (1) relocate certain operating 

cycle-specific parameters limits, 

including TS Figure 2.1.1–1, ‘‘Reactor 

Core Safety Limits,’’ from the above TSs 

to the plant COLR, (2) add two new 

safety limits for departure from nucleate 

boiling ratio (DNBR) and peak fuel 

centerline temperature, and (3) add 

several topical reports to TS 5.6.5 and 

have the reports in TS 5.6.5 cited by 

only the report title and number. The 

TSs would state that the limits to be met 

or the values of denoted parameters are 

specified in the COLR. The existing TS 

5.6.5 has seven core operating limits 

that are listed in the specification, and 

this would be expanded to include the 

three additional limits from TSs 2.1.1, 

3.3.1, and 3.4.1. The changes are 

consistent with NRC-approved Standard 

Technical Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 

TSTF–339, Revision 2, ‘‘Relocate TS 

Parameters to COLR,’’ and TSTF–363, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Relocate Topical Report 

References in ITS [Improved Technical 

Specification] 5.6.5, COLR.’’

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Overall protection system performance will 

remain within the bounds of the previously 

performed accident analyses since there are 

no design [or equipment] changes. The 

design of the reactor trip system (RTS) 

instrumentation and engineered safety 

feature actuation system (ESFAS) 

instrumentation will be unaffected and these 

protection systems will continue to function 

in a manner consistent with the plant design 

basis. All design, material, and construction 

standards that were applicable prior to this 

amendment request will be maintained. 

The proposed changes will not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes will not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) from performing their 

intended [safety] functions to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. 

The proposed changes are programmatic 

and administrative in nature. These changes 

do not physically alter safety-related systems 

nor affect the way in which safety-related 

systems perform their functions. Additional 

Safety Limits on the DNB [departure from 

nucleate boiling] design basis and peak fuel 

centerline temperature are being imposed in 

TS 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core Safety Limits,’’ and 

the Reactor Core Safety Limits figure is being 

relocated to the COLR. The additional Safety 

Limits are consistent with the values stated 

in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report for 

the Callaway Plant]. The proposed changes 

do not, by themselves, alter any of the 

relocated limits. The removal of the cyclespecific parameter limits from the TS[s] does 

not eliminate existing requirements to 

comply with the parameter limits. [The value 

of the limits is relocated to the COLR, but the 

requirement to follow that limit remains in 

the TSs by the reference to the limits or 

values in the COLR, and the values of the 

limits are not being changed by this 

amendment.] TS 5.6.5.b continues to ensure 

that the analytical methods used to 

determine the core operating limits meet 

NRC reviewed and approved methodologies 

[by the requirement stated in TS 5.6.5.b that 

‘‘the analytical methods used to determine 

the core operating limits shall be those 

previously reviewed and approved by the 

NRC’’]. TS 5.6.5.c, [which is] unchanged by 

this application, will continue to ensure that 

applicable limits of the safety analyses are 

met [by continuing to state this as a 

requirement in the TSs]. 

The proposed changes to reference only the 

Topical Report number and title do not alter 

the use of the analytical methods used to 

determine core operating limits that have 

been reviewed and approved by the NRC. 

[This remains a requirement stated in TS 

5.6.5.b.] This [proposed] method of 

referencing Topical Reports would allow the 

use of current [NRC-approved] Topical 

Reports to support [the] limits in the COLR 

without [the licensee] having to submit an 

amendment to the operating license. 

Implementation of revisions to Topical 

Reports for Callaway Plant applications 

would still be reviewed in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and, where required, 

receive prior NRC review and approval. [The 

criteria in the regulation governing changes 

to the plant without NRC approval, 10 CFR 

50.59, would have to be met before the 

licensee could use a later version of an NRCapproved Topical Report that is listed in TS 

5.6.5.b.] 

The cycle-specific parameter limits being 

transferred from the TS[s] to the COLR will 

continue to be controlled under existing 

programs and procedures. The FSAR 

accident analyses will continue to be 

examined with respect to future changes in 

the cycle-specific parameters using NRC 

reviewed and approved reload design 

methodologies [(i.e., NRC reviewed and 

approved Topical Reports)], ensuring that the 

evaluation of new reload designs under 10 

CFR 50.59 is bounded by previously accepted 

analyses. 

All accident analysis acceptance criteria 

will continue to be met with the proposed 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

affect the source term, containment isolation, 

or radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed changes will not alter any 

assumptions or change any mitigation actions 

in the radiological consequence evaluations 

in the FSAR. The applicable radiological 

dose acceptance criteria will continue to be 

met. 

[The proposed changes do not alter any 

requirements in the TSs, but they do add two 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 

new safety limits to TS 2.2.1. The changes 

also relocate certain limits or parameter 

values from the TSs to the COLR; however, 

these limits and values are still required to 

be met and be determined from NRCapproved methodologies that apply to the 

Callaway Plant. Therefore, there are no 

changes to accident analyses previously 

evaluated and described in the FSAR.] 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no proposed design changes nor 

are there any changes in the method by 

which any safety-related plant SSC performs 

its safety function. Th[ese] change[s] will not 

affect the normal method of plant operation 

or change any operating parameters. No 

equipment performance requirements will be 

affected. The proposed changes will not alter 

any assumptions made in the safety analyses. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures will be introduced as a result 

of this amendment. There will be no adverse 

effect or challenges imposed on any safetyrelated system as a result of this amendment. 

[No equipment is being added to the plant by 

the amendment.] 

The proposed amendment will not alter the 

design or performance of the 7300 Process 

Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 

System, or Solid State Protection System 

used in the plant protection systems. 

Relocation of cycle-specific parameter 

limits has no influence on, nor does it 

contribute in any way to, the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident. The 

relocated cycle-specific parameter limits will 

continue to be calculated using the NRC 

reviewed and approved methodologies. The 

proposed changes do not alter assumptions 

made in the safety analyses. Operation 

within the core operating limits will continue 

to be observed. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to assure the 

accomplishment of protection functions. 

There will be no impacts on the overpower 

limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio 

(DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor 

(FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor 

(FDH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding 

temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power 

density, or any other margin of safety. The 

applicable radiological dose consequence 

acceptance criteria will continue to be met. 

The proposed changes do not eliminate 

any surveillances or alter the frequency of 

surveillances [(i.e., the surveillance test 

intervals)] required by the Technical 

Specifications. The nominal RTS and ESFAS 

trip setpoints will remain unchanged. None 

of the acceptance criteria for any accident 

analysis will be changed. 

The development of cycle-specific 

parameter limits for future reload designs 

will continue to conform to NRC reviewed 

and approved methodologies, and will be 

performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to 

assure that plant operation [is] within [these] 

cycle-specific parameter limits. 

The proposed changes will have no impact 

on the radiological consequences of a design 

basis accident. 

[The proposed changes do not alter any 

requirements in the TSs. They relocate 

certain limits or parameter values from the 

TSs to the COLR; however, these limits and 

values are still required to be met and be 

determined from NRC-approved 

methodologies that apply to the Callaway 

Plant.] 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill, 

Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. 

Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power 

Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 25, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Technical 

Specification (TS) 4.2.a, ‘‘ASME 

[American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers] Code Class 1, 2, 3, and MC 

Components and Supports.’’ The 

revised TS 4.2.a.2, references the ASME 

Code for Operation and Maintenance of 

Nuclear Power Plants. 

Date of issuance: December 14, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 189 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

43: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR 

62308). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

DukePower Company LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 20, 2005, as supplemented 

May 4 and August 31, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the McGuire 1 and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1783 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

2 licensing basis to adopt a selective 

implementation of the alternative source 

term radiological analysis methodology. 

The amendments also revised Technical 

Specification 3.9.4, ‘‘Containment 

Penetrations.’’

Date of issuance: December 22, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 236, 218 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 24, 2006 (71 FR 

50105) 

The supplements dated May 4 and 

August 31, 2006, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois. 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 9, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated August 16, August 24, 

September 13, and October 12, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments adopt Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specification (STS) 

Change Traveler 360 (TSTF–360), 

Revision 1, ‘‘DC Electric Rewrite.’’ The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 3.8.4, ‘‘DC 

Sources-Operating,’’ TS 3.8.5, ‘‘DC 

Sources-Shutdown,’’ TS 3.8.6, ‘‘Battery 

Cell Parameters,’’ and adds a new TS 

Section 5.5.14, ‘‘Battery Monitoring and 

Maintenance Program.’’

Date of issuance: December 19, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 179/165. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

11 and NPF–18: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19115) 

The August 16, August 24, September 

13, and October 12, 2006 supplements 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia. 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 30, 2006, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 30, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

proposed amendments would relocate 

the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) standard being used 

to test the total particulate concentration 

of the stored fuel oil to the Technical 

Specification (TS) Bases. This proposed 

change is described in TS Task Force 

(TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler 

TSTF–374, Rev. 0, ‘‘Revision to TS 

5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for 

Diesel Fuel Oil.’’ In addition, the 

licensee has proposed to use a ‘‘water 

and sediment test’’ instead of the ‘‘clear 

and bright’’ test provided in TSTF–374. 

Date of issuance: December 11, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 249, 229. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7: Amendments 

change the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 

46941) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of January 2007. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John W. Lubinski, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–321 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–55045; File No. SR–Amex–

2007–02] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Options Fee Changes 

January 5, 2007. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on January 4, 

2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC 

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

substantially prepared by the Amex. 

The Amex has designated this proposal 

as one establishing or changing a 

member due, fee, or other charge 

imposed by a self-regulatory 

organization pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–

4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the 

proposal effective upon filing with the 

Commission. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Amex proposes to modify its 

Options Fee Schedule. The text of the 

proposed rule change is available at the 

Amex, on the Amex’s Web site at 

http://www.amex.com, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Amex included statements concerning 

the purpose of, and basis for, the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposal. 

The text of these statements may be 

examined at the places specified in Item 

IV below. The Exchange has prepared 

summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES